The sturdy English colonists, Catholic and Puritan, fleeing from persecution, carried with them to their new home not only their little stores of household goods, but a treasure of great price. Wherever they went, their laws and their constitution accompanied them. Governments were set up, modelled after that which they had left behind. The Governor represented the Crown. He and his Ministers were the executive. The legislature was composed of the Governor and two Houses, the upper House appointed by him, and the lower House elected by the people. The history of the colonial constitutions is the history of the English constitution in miniature. The governors tried to give laws to the little senates. The upper Houses mimicked the state of their prototype, and the lower Houses rivalled the Commons in independence. Indeed, the loss of the American colonies was due to their assertion of a cherished English right. Rather than submit to taxation without representation, they broke away from the mother-country, and declared themselves independent. And now comes a matter of the greatest interest to the student of the English Constitution. The colonies in severing their connection with England had thereby broken the bond of union among themselves. It was, therefore, necessary to form a government to bring them together again. The English Constitution was their model. They had rebelled, we must remember, not so much against the Constitution as against King George and his Ministers. Besides, their local governments had been copied from it. Their great aim was to retain as much as possible of the spirit of the English Constitution, but to provide against a tyranny like that of George III. They took their ideas from Montesquieu and from the working of the Constitution during the Ministry of Lord North. Accordingly, they were careful to separate the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and to form two legislative chambers, the Senate and House of Representatives. The president was to stand in the place of the English king. He was to have a qualified veto on legislation, and in him was to be the chief executive power. As a security, however, against abuse, his office was to be elective, and for a terin of only four years. He was to appoint his Ministers (by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), and it was distinctly enacted that no member of the executive should be a member of the legislature.* And to make the

*" No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office, under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office." Art. I. sec. vi. 2. Compare the similar provision in the Act of Settlement, supra.

distinction more marked, the President was to be elected by a process quite different from that by which the Legislature was to be elected. Stringent conditions were required for any change in the Constitution, and consequently few changes have taken place.*

After the loss of the American colonies a new period of colonial history was entered upon. The colonies were henceforth to be nominally free, but really governed from Downing Street. Representative institutions were granted in 1785 to New Brunswick, in 1791 to the two Canadas, and later on to the Australian colonies. But the assemblies were controlled by the governors and the official aristocracy, who were the nominees and allies of the Home Government. Occasionally also the English ministers directly interferred. The rapid growth of the colonies and the Reform Bill of 1832 put an end to this system. A rebellion in Lower Canada brought matters to a crisis. Responsible government was introduced and has since become the rule in other free colonies. "By the adoption of this principle," says Sir Erskine May ("Constitutional History of England," vol. iii. p. 368),

a colonial constitution has become the very image and reflection of parliamentary government in England. The governor, like the Sovereign whom he represents, holds himself aloof from, and superior to parties; and governs through constitutional advisers who have acquired an ascendency in the legislature. He leaves contending parties to fight out their own battles; and by admitting the stronger party to his councils, brings the executive authority into harmony with popular sentiments. And as the recognition of this doctrine, in England, has practically transferred the supreme authority of the State from the Crown to Parliament and the people-so in the colonies has it wrested from the governor and from the parent State the direction of colonial affairs. And again, as the Crown has gained in ease and popularity what it has lost in power-so has the mother country, in accepting, to the full, the principle of local self-government, established the closest relations of amity and confidence between herself and her colonies.†

This short account of the English Constitution since the

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments; which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress." Art. V.

As Sir Charles Gavan Duffy has said: "Canada did not obtain Home Rule because she was loyal, but she became loyal because she obtained Home Rule."

56 The English Constitution in Theory and in Practice.

"

Revolution, and of the American and Colonial constitutions which were copied from it, leads us to a startling result. Most Englishmen of the present day look upon the American constitution as something altogether mysterious. They do not understand Congress" and "caucuses," "tickets" and "platforms," "Democrats " and "Republicans." Part of the difficulty arises, no doubt, from the peculiar phraseology of American politics. Part also from the division of parties on the question of State rights. But the difficulty is due chiefly to the fact that a great change has taken place here at home. Fifty years ago Radical reformers used to be reproached with trying to "Americanize our institutions." The true Tory was known by his hearty distrust of everything "Yankee." Radicals and Tories have since changed places. To study the France of the ancien régime we must go to Lower Canada. In like manner we must cross over to New England to find the old English Constitution.

It is no part of my intention to discuss the comparative merits of the old and the new systems. Blackstone and Sir H. S. Maine may be consulted in favour of the old system and its American imitation, while Mr. Bagehot should be read in favour of the new. I have already alluded to some of the difficulties of the fusion of the legislative and executive powers. On the other hand the separation of these powers may produce a deadlock in the business of Government. When the executive and the legislature quarrel, or are not on good terms, the legislature will not grant what is required by the executive for carrying on the Government, and the executive will refuse to exercise powers entrusted to it. The struggle between President Johnson and the Congress after the Civil War deserves the closest attention of every student of political pathology.

At the beginning of this article it was remarked that the questions of Federation and Home Rule were drawing attention to the study of the English Constitution. I trust that what has here been said will be of help towards the right understanding of the real points at issue. Home Rule has been defined by Professor Dicey in his recent powerful work on the subject ("England's Case against Home Rule") as " the creation of an Irish Parliament which shall have legislative authority in matters of Irish concern, and of an Irish executive responsible (in general) for its acts to the Irish Parliament or the Irish people." That is to say, Ireland would stand exactly in the position of a Colony as above described. She would be just as much a part of the Empire as Canada is now. No "fundamental law of the Constitution" would be repealed. The theory and practice of the Constitution would still remain as at present. The area over which the English Parliament exercises direct control would indeed be

smaller than at present, but, in return, a number of questions which cut across the division of English parties would be got rid of, and a hundred obstructive members would be removed. Surely a change of this kind does not deserve the torrent of abuse that has been poured upon it. Strange to say, the other question, Federation, does involve vast changes in the Constitution, and yet is considered worthy of all praise. Federation requires that a distinction can be drawn between Imperial and non-Imperial matters. The Imperial Parliament should discuss Imperial questions, while non-Imperial questions should be discussed in the local Parliaments. When the legislative and executive powers are separated, this distinction can be drawn; but when they are united, every Imperial question becomes domestic, and every domestic question Imperial. Federation thus involves that the present practice of the Constitution should be completely changed. I do not mean to imply that this would be a change for the worse. I only wish to point out that whereas Home Rule is decried because it involves a vast change in the Constitution (which it does not), Federation, which does imply such a change, is lauded to the skies. Something, however, will have to be done. The state of the East may at any time lead to a war. England's difficulty will be Ireland's opportunity. Canada and New South Wales will rightly object to being dragged into war without being consulted. Federation or dismemberment must therefore come. Federation means prosperity, dismemberment means destruction. We shall soon be called upon to decide whether the New Zealander of the future is to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's from a broken arch of London Bridge, or to take his seat at Westminster in a senate representing the four quarters of the globe.

T. B. SCANNell.

L

ART. IV.-SHAKESPEARE AS AN ECONOMIST.

ITERATURE in these days for not a few has taken the place of religion; the heroes of literature receive a worship, which is in no way daunted by their moral shortcomings; and, if we wish to recommend our opinions among our cultured fellow-countrymen, it is no longer any use to seek "confirmations strong" in any "proofs of holy writ," for they have delivered up the Bible to the German critics, and we must rather have ready at hand some text out of the new gospel, and back our opinion by an apt quotation from Victor Hugo or Goethe. But

these are not the only names that can act as a spell to attract modern ears; and, at least for the English speaking world, the first place in all literature is still held by Shakespeare. Now this is fortunate; for in almost all points of religion and ethics, of politics and economics, on which Shakespeare touches-and he touches on many-he is an authority on the right side. True, indeed, that because Shakespeare, or Shelley, or Mr. Swinburne say a thing is so, this does not make it so; and the teachers of logic may shake their heads over a generation which refuses the rational belief in the Law of Nature, or in revealed religion, and then tries to make up for this irrational scepticism by an equally irrational belief in the poets, as though they were the inspired prophets of the Most High. Still the world never seems to have been very wise, and we must take it as we find it. The great point is to get Christian doctrine accepted, and to despise no lawful vehicle for conveying it. There was a time when, to be listened to, you had to write in Ciceronian Latin, and adorn your pages with classical quotations. That fancy is over, and now it is the turn of modern literature. Let us humour our patient, and give him nourishment in the form he can take it. For this purpose it seems to me that Shakespeare can be of great use to us, more perhaps than any other writer, because his name is so great and his teaching so clear. Let me say, indeed, at once, that I by no means subscribe to that fantastic opinion, which has exposed us to much ridicule, and which represents Shakespeare as an heroic confessor of our holy faith in the dark days of persecution. This opinion is, indeed, less preposterous than that which represents him as a sort of champion of Protestantism, or that which makes him supremely indifferent to all creeds. Still, an opinion is not right because it is not so wrong as others; and the real state of the case seems briefly this.* First, it is highly improbable that Shakespeare lived openly and avowedly as a Catholic. Secondly, there is no evidence that he was not always in heart and desire a Catholic. Thirdly, there is some, though not conclusive, evidence that he died avowedly a Catholic. Fourthly, his writings prove that he had an intimate knowledge of our religion and a great respect and liking for it; presenting over and over again the doctrines and ministers of our Church in a favourable light, when there was every occasion for doing the reverse, and, what is more to our present purpose, habitually assuming as true the Christian scheme of the universe, the Christian view of man's nature and destiny. It is not surprising,

I can refer to the excellent article by Mr. Thurston, on of Shakspere," in the Month, May 1882.

"The Religion